the common acceptation of the word, are of various kinds: they are natural or adventitious, alienable or unalienable, perfect or imperfect, particular or general. See the article LIBERTY.

Natural rights are those which a man has to his life, limbs, and liberty; to the produce of his personal rights, labour; to the use, in common with others, of air, light, and water, &c. That every man has a natural right or just claim to these things, is evident from their being absolutely necessary to enable him to answer that purpose, whatever it may be, for which he was made a living and a rational being. This shows undeniably, that the Author of his nature designed that he should have the use of them, and that the man who should wantonly deprive him of any one of them, would be guilty of a breach of the divine law, as well as act inconsistently with the fitness of things in every sense in which that phrase can possibly be understood.

Adventitious rights are those which a king has over his subjects, a general over his soldiers, a husband to the person and affections of his wife, and which every man rights, has to the greater part of his property. That the rights of the king and the general are adventitious, is universally admitted. The rights of property have been considered elsewhere (see PROPERTY); and though the human constitution shows sufficiently that men and women have a natural right to the use of each other, yet it is evident that the exclusive right of any one man to any one woman, and vice versa, must be an adventitious right: But the important question is, How are adventitious rights acquired?

In answer to this question, the moralist who deduces laws of virtue from the will of God, observes, that as God appears from his works to be a benevolent Being, who wills the happiness of all his creatures (see METAPHYSICS, No. 312.), he must of course will every thing which naturally tends to promote that happiness. But the existence of civil society evidently contributes in a great degree to promote the sum of human happiness (see SOCIETY); and therefore whatever is necessary for the support of civil society in general, or for the conduct of particular societies already established, must be agreeable to the will of God: But the allegiance of subjects to their sovereign, the obedience of soldiers to their leader, the protection of private property, and the fulfilling of contracts, are all absolutely necessary to the support of society: and hence the rights of kings, generals, husbands, and wives, &c., though adventitious, and immediately derived from human appointments, are not less sacred than natural rights, since they may all be ultimately traced to the same source. The same conclusion may easily be drawn by the philosopher, who rests moral obligation on the fitness of things or on a moral sense; only it must in each of these cases partake of the infallibility of its foundation.

To the sacredness of the rights of marriage, an author already quoted has lately urged some declamatory to some objections. "It is absurd (says he) to expect, that the inclinations and wishes of two human beings should always coincide through any long period of time. To oblige them to act and to live together, is to subject them to some inevitable portion of thwarting, bickering, and unhappiness. This cannot be otherwise, so long as man has failed to reach the standard of absolute perfection. The supposition that I must have a companion, for life, is the result of a complication of vices. It is the dictate of cowardice, and not of fortitude. It flows from the desire of being loved and esteemed for some- thing that is not dear.

"But the evil of marriage, as it is practised in Eu- ropean countries, lies deeper than this. The habit is, for a thoughtless and romantic youth of each sex to come together, to see each other for a few times, and under circumstances full of delusion, and then to vow to each other eternal attachment. What is the conse- quence of this? In almost every instance they find them- selves deceived. They are reduced to make the best of an irretrievable mistake. They are presented with the strongest imaginable temptation to become the dupes of falsehood. They are led to conceive their wifely policy to shut their eyes upon realities; happy if by any perversion of intellect they can persuade themselves that they were right in their first crude opinion of their com- panion.

"So long as two human beings are forbidden by positive institution to follow the dictates of their own mind, prejudice is alive and vigorous. So long as I seek to engraft one woman on myself, and to prohibit my neighbour from proving his superior desert and reap- ing the fruits of it, I am guilty of the most odious of all monopolies. Over this imaginary prize men watch with perpetual jealousy; and one man will find his de- sires and his capacity to circumvent as much excited, as the other is excited to traverse his projects and frustrate his hopes. As long as this state of society continues, philanthropy will be crossed and checked in a thousand ways, and the still augmenting stream of abuse will con- tinue to flow.

"The abolition of marriage will be attended with no evils. The intercourse of the sexes will fall under the same system as any other species of friendship. Exclusively of all groundless and obstinate attachments, it will be impossible for me to live in the world without finding one man of a worth superior to that of any other whom I have an opportunity of observing. To this man I shall feel a kindred in exact proportion to my apprehension of his worth. The case will be pre- cisely the same with respect to the female sex; I shall affectionately cultivate the intercourse of that woman whose accomplishments shall strike me in the most powerful manner. But it may happen that other men will feel for her the same preference that I do." This will create no difficulty. We may all enjoy her conversa- tion; and we shall all be wise enough to consider the sexual intercourse as a very trivial object. This, like every other affair in which two persons are concerned, must be regulated in each successive instance by the un- forced consent of either party. It is a mark of the ex- treme depravity of our present habits, that we are in- clined to suppose the sexual intercourse anywise ma- terial to the advantages arising from the purest affec- tion. Reasonable men now eat and drink, not from the love of pleasure, but because eating and drinking are essential to our healthful existence. Reasonable men then will propagate their species, not because a certain sensible pleasure is annexed to this action, but because it is right the species should be propagated; and the manner in which they exercise this function will be regulated by the dictates of reason and duty."

It is right then, according to this political innovator, that the species should be propagated, and reasonable men in his Utopian commonwealth would be incited by reason and duty to propagate them: but the way to fulfil this duty, experience, which is seldom at one with speculative reformation, has already demonstrated, not to consist in the promiscuous intercourse of several men with one woman, but in the fidelity of individuals of the two sexes to each other. Common prostitutes among us seldom prove with child; and the society of Arroyos in Otaheite, who have completely divested themselves of what our author calls prejudice, and are by no means guilty of his most odious of all monopolies, are for the most part childless (see Otaheite). He seems to think that a state of equal property would necessarily destroy our relish for luxury, decrease our inordinate appetites of every kind, and lead us universally to prefer the pleasures of in- tellect to the pleasures of sensuality. But here again experi- ence is against him. The Arroyos, who have a property in their women perfectly equal, are the most luxurious and sensual wretches on the face of the earth; sensual indeed to a degree of which the most libidinous European can hardly form a conception.

By admitting it to be a duty to propagate the species, our author must necessarily grant that every thing is right which is requisite to the fulfilling of that duty, and the contrary wrong. If so, promiscuous concubinage is wrong, since we have seen, that by a law of nature it is incom- patible with the duty; whence it follows on his own principles, that the sexual union by pairs must be right. The only question therefore to be decided between him and his opponents is, "Whether should that union be temporary or permanent?" And we think the following observations by Mr Paley sufficient to decide it to the conviction of every person not blinded by the rage of in- novation.

"A lawgiver, whose counsels were directed by views of general utility, and obstructed by no local impediments, would make the marriage-contract indissoluble during the joint lives of the parties, for the sake of the following ad- vantages: Such an union tends to preserve peace and con- cord between married persons, by perpetuating their com- mon interest, and by inducing a necessity of mutual com- pliance. An earlier termination of it would produce a separate interest. The wife would naturally look forward to the dissolution of the partnership, and endeavour to draw to herself a fund again at the time when she was no longer to have access to the same resources. This would beget speculation on one side, and mistrust on the other; evils which at present very little disturb the confidence of married life. The second effect of making the union determinable only by death, is not less beneficial. It necessarily happens, that adverse tempers, habits, and talents, oftentimes meet in marriage. In which case, each party must take pains to give up what offends, and prac- tice what may gratify, the other. A man and woman in love with each other do this infinately: but love is neither general nor durable; and where that is wanting, no lessons of duty, no delicacy of sentiment, will go half so far with the generality of mankind and womankind as this one intelligible reflection, that they must each make the best of their bargain; and that feeling they must either both be miserable or both share in the same hap- piness, neither can find their own comfort but in promo- ting the pleasure of the other. These compliances, though at first extorted by necessity, become in time easy and mutual; mutual; and though less endearing than affinities which take their rise from affection, generally procure to the married pair a repose and satisfaction sufficient for their happiness."

So differently from our author does this judicious writer reason concerning the effects of a permanent union on the tempers of the married pair. Instead of subjecting them to some inevitable portion of thwarting, bickering, and unhappiness, it lays them, in his opinion, under the necessity of curbing their unruly passions, and acquiring habits of gentleness, forbearance, and peace. To this we may add, that both believing the children propagated during their marriage to be their own (a belief unattainable by the father in a state of promiscuous concubinage), they come by a natural process of the human passions (see Passion) to love each other through the medium of their offspring. But if it be the duty of man to acquire a spirit first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, it must be agreeable to the will of God, and a branch of the fitness of things, that the sexual union last during the joint lives of the parties; and therefore the exclusive right of marriage, though adventitious, must be equally sacred with those which are natural.

But to return from this digression, into which the importance of the subject led us, rights, besides being natural or adventitious, are likewise alienable or unalienable. Every man, when he becomes the member of a civil community, alienates a part of his natural rights. In a state of nature, no man has a superior on earth, and each has a right to defend his life, liberty, and property by all the means which nature has put in his power. In civil society, however, these rights are all transferred to the laws and the magistrate, except in cases of such extreme urgency as leave not time for legal interposition. This single consideration is sufficient to show, that the right to civil liberty is alienable; though, in the vehemence of men's zeal for it, and in the language of some political remonstrances, it has often been pronounced to be an unalienable right. "The true reason (says Mr Paley) why mankind hold in detestation the memory of those who have sold their liberty to a tyrant is, that, together with their own, they sold commonly or endangered the liberty of others; of which they had certainly no right to dispose." The rights of a prince over his people, and of a husband over his wife, are generally and naturally unalienable.

Another division of rights is into those which are perfect and those which are imperfect. Perfect rights are such as may be precisely ascertained and affected by force or in civil society by the course of law. To imperfect rights neither force nor law is applicable. A man's rights to his life, person, and property, are all perfect; for if any of these be attacked, he may repel the attack by instant violence, punish the aggressor by the course of law, or compel the author of the injury to make restitution or satisfaction. A woman's right to her honour is likewise perfect; for if she cannot otherwise escape, she may kill the ravisher. Every poor man has an undoubted right to relief from the rich; but his right is imperfect, for if the relief be not voluntarily given, he cannot compel it either by law or by violence. There is no duty upon which the Christian religion puts a greater value than alms-giving; and every preacher of the gospel has an undoubted right to inculcate the practice of it upon his audience: but even this right is imperfect, for he cannot refuse the communion to a man merely on account of his illiberality to the poor, as he can to another for the neglect of any duty comprehended under the term justice. In elections or appointments to offices, where the qualifications are prescribed, the best qualified candidate has unquestionably a right to succeed; yet if he be rejected, he can neither seize the office by force, nor obtain redress at law. His right, therefore, is imperfect.

Here a question naturally offers itself to our consideration: "How comes a person to have a right to a thing, and yet have no right to use the means necessary to obtain it?" The answer is, That in such cases the object or the circumstances of the right are so indeterminate, that the permission of force, even where the right is real and certain, would lead to force in other cases where there exists no right at all. Thus, though the poor man has a right to relief, who shall ascertain the mode, extent, and quantum of it, or the person by whom it shall be administered? These things must be ascertained before the right to relief can be enforced by law; but to allow them to be ascertained by the poor themselves, would be to expose property to endless claims. In like manner, the comparative qualifications of the candidate must be ascertained, before he can enforce his right to the office; but to allow him to ascertain his qualifications himself, would be to make him judge in his own cause between himself and his neighbour.

Wherever the right is imperfect on one side, the corresponding obligation on the other must be imperfect likewise. The violation of it, however, is often not less equally felt with criminal in a moral and religious view than of a perfect those which obligation. It is well observed by Mr Paley, that greater are perfect guilt is incurred by disappointing a worthy candidate of a place upon which perhaps his livelihood depends, and in which he could eminently serve the public, than by filching a book out of a library, or picking a pocket of a handkerchief. The same sentiment has been expressed by Mr Godwin, but in terms by much too strong, and such as show that he was not at the time complete master of his subject. "My neighbour (says he) has just as much right to put an end to my existence with dagger or poison, as to deny me that pecuniary assistance without which I must starve, or as to deny me that assistance without which my intellectual attainments, or my moral exertions, will be materially injured. He has just as much right to amuse himself with burning my house, or torturing my children upon the rack, as to shut himself up in a cell, careless about his fellow men, and to hide 'his talent in a napkin.'

It is certainly true, that the man who should suffer another to starve for want of that relief which he knew that he alone could afford him, would be guilty of murder, and murder of the cruellest kind; but there is an immense difference between depriving society of one of its members, and withholding from that member what might be necessary to enable him to make the greatest possible intellectual attainments. Newton might have been useful and happy though he had never been acquainted with the elements of mathematics; and the late celebrated Mr Ferguson might have been a valuable member of society, though he had never emerged from his original condition of a shepherd. The remainder of the paragraph is too absurd to require a formal confutation. Righteousness, means justice, honesty, virtue, goodness, and amongst Christians is of exactly the same import with holiness, without which, we are told, no man shall see the Lord. The doctrine of the fall, and of redemption through Jesus Christ, has occasioned much disputation, and given rise to many singular notions in the world. The haughty philosopher, dissatisfied with mysteries, and, with the humiliating doctrine of atonement by a crucified Saviour, has made a religion for himself, which he calls rational Christianity; and Righteousness, the enthusiast, by extracting doctrines from Scripture which are not contained in it, and which are repugnant to its spirit, has given too much countenance to this presumption. The doctrine of imputed righteousness, by which the merit of Christ is said to be imputed to us, appears to be of this number; and though it has been held by many good, and by some learned men, it is certainly in general unfriendly to virtue, as will be readily allowed by all who have conversed with the more ignorant sort of Methodists in England or Sectarians in Scotland. That it does not follow from the doctrine of the atonement, and consequently that it has no foundation in Scripture, will appear elsewhere. See Theology.

Bill of Rights, in Law, is a declaration delivered by the lords and commons to the prince and princess of Orange, 13th February 1688; and afterwards enacted in parliament, when they became king and queen. It sets forth, that King James did, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, endeavour to subvert the laws and liberties of this kingdom, by exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws; by levying money for the use of the crown by pretence of prerogative without consent of parliament; by prosecuting those who petitioned the king, and discouraging petitions; by raising and keeping a standing army in time of peace; by violating the freedom of election of members to serve in parliament; by violent prosecutions in the court of king's bench; and causing partial and corrupt jurors to be returned on trials, excessive bail to be taken, excessive fines to be imposed, and cruel punishments inflicted; all which were declared to be illegal. And the declaration concludes in these remarkable words: "And they do claim, demand, and insist upon, all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties." And the act of parliament itself (1 W. and M. stat. 2. cap. 2.) recognizes "all and singular the rights and liberties, asserted and claimed in the said declaration, to be the true, ancient, indubitable rights of the people of this kingdom." See Liberty.